That is not so far fetched as it might seem on first glance. I supported, reluctantly, Obama because I was so totally disgusted with the Repos. I thought a couple years in the wilderness might do them some good.

It looks like I was right. The Tea Party has brought out new voters and new candidates and we might just nudge the country in a better direction.

Would we have had the Tea Parties had McCain been elected?

Or would we have just continued the Repo policy of letting things slide leftward, "But more slowly please"

Those pols that identify themselves as conservative are not interesting in stopping the decline, much less reversing it. They accept everything the Demmies want, just a bit more slowly and not so much.

Going to Hell slowly in a plush lined handbasket is no improvement over going to Hell quickly in a tumbrel.

That is why I am proud to call myself a liberal (or libertarian of minarchist, if you prefer)

A pox on conservatives.

Caveat: Many who call themselves conservative do so out of ignorance. They are really more liberal/libertarian than conservative. No pox on them. They are my kind of people.

"The Republican base is part of a conservative movement. The Democratic base, by contrast, is a loose coalition that elects a new president and then goes home, expecting the new president to deliver miracles."

Progressives will never be able to create the kind of movement that conservatives have. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can look around the world at the wreckage caused by leftish movements -- the millions of unbelievers enslaved; the millions purged, their blood crying out from the ground in China and Cambodia and the grounds of the concentration camps, the result of the Socialist genocides in Germany -- and rationally reject the philosophical underpinnings that drive the progressive movement.

With that kind of disadvantage, no wonder progressives can't get any traction in US politics.

The Economy ? What did the Repos do with the economy that you objected too ? The bailouts, ok ... agreed ... anything else ? If you go off on de-regulation you will only prove that you are anything but a libertarian ...

So in the end I doubt you ever were really disgusted by the Repos but wanted to vote for the cool kid ... and now you are trying to justify that vote with some sort of rationalization about your superior position as opposed to the conservatives who "really are liberals/libertarians" ...

That mostly benefited unions and government workers, about 18% of the population. That didn't stimulate the economy and has been wasted on pet projects in blue states.

the most extensive healthcare legislation in history (affecting 1/6 of our economy)

That no one wanted in the first place and that will increase costs of insurance and will ration availble health care. That turns medical professionals into slaves of the state and forces the people to purchase elaborate coverage that they don't want or don't need (for young people) or just plain can't afford.

and the most far reaching financial reforms since the Great Depression.

That created enormous layers of bureaucracy and gave sweeping powers to unelected officials to be able to take over and destroy businesses. Huge intrusions into every aspect of not only business but also our personal affairs.

Leftists are never happy. It's impossible. Like a child chasing bubbles, it must be frustrating to watch promises of utopia go pop.

The left get ObamaCare - and they are still not happy. It's not the full-on government controlled tax-payer funded "single Payer" utopia they were promised. Plus, The giveaways to large drug companies confuses them. Frustration.

The left get "financial reform" -- but it's another 2000 page mess filled with insider corporate favoritism. Utopia is still an illusion. Frustration.

The left were promised a vibrant green-economy with lowered sea levels. Instead? They get an oil spill. Frustration.

The left were promised that the evil "Bush tax cuts for the rich" would be repealed. They were promised that if only we could "tax the rich", America would be perfect. Now, if tax cuts expire, the obvious harm to the economy and the left's election prospects are inevitable. (Nevermind the left's/Steny Hoyer's attempt to paint an "up is down" liar situation regarding taxes.) Frustration.

The left were promised a swift departure from Iraq. Guantanamo would be closed too. Frustration.

As a Wisconsin "progressive" in the mold of Robert M. La Folletate, Sr. I focus on those issues of ethics and social justice, and therefore I am disappointed in some of Obama's policies, but long ago dropped my idealistic hope that one person can make a change in the well monied and tangled web of DC politics--the lack of oil industry regulation which was lobbied against by over 400 insiders is a good example. But as a progressive I can push for specific issues like appointing Elizebeth Warren, and work with conservatives to enforce the clean water act here in Wisconsin.

"Dear Lord poor President Kick-Ass can't a break from leftards can he. He isn't leftard enough for them it seems."

It might help him "catch a break" if he were "leftard" at all, rather than the meek, smalltown, centrist Rotarian he is.

DBQ said, of the stimulus package,

"That mostly benefited unions and government workers, about 18% of the population."

Hahahaha! It benefitted solely the banks and financial houses (and the thieving gangsters who run them) who have bankrupted this country and who nearly caused a collapse of the Global economic system--which is not to say it still can't, or won't. (Collapse, that is.)

It's too rich, such willful obtuseness and persistent hatred of "da unions" (i.e., working people), who appear to such ignorami to be the tryants of the economic system (even as their numbers shrink precipitously each year), yet who, in truth, are the primary victims of it.

Hahahaha! It benefitted solely the banks and financial houses (and the thieving gangsters who run them) who have bankrupted this country and who nearly caused a collapse of the Global economic system--which is not to say it still can't, or won't. (Collapse, that is.)

At the risk of bringing facts into the discussion, the stimulus didn't go to the banks and financial institutions. That was TARP and was a fraction of the stimulus price tag.

Hoosier, point taken, I sloppily used the shorthand term "stimulus" when referring to the TARP program.

Nonetheless, my semantic carelessness does not render any more valid DBQ's supposition that "unions and government workers" have been beneficiaries of any tax dollar payouts.

Neither does it render invalid the reality that the government has transferred billions of taxpayer dollars from the hands of working Americans and into the pockets and offshore accounts of the thieves who head up the banks and Wall Street firms, who have enjoyed an orgy of giving themselves bonuses with our money during a time when many Americans are in desperate straits.

Jeremy, you racist Democrat (sorry to repeat myself) piece of shit. I've met more racism from Democrats (oh, you poor person of color! You can't achieve xyz unless we he'p you! (yeah, you buncha plantation overseers, you!) than from GOPers who lay down the talk hard and clear like good wood and expect you to bust your arse getting what you want outta life.

Ghost asked what disgusted me about the Repos on a number of topics. Lets take them in order:

Spending

Seems to me that the Repos have been almost as guilty of overspending as the Demmies.

Would be be better off overspending by half a trillion than a full trillion? (or whatever the numbers might be)

I would say worse off. Half a trillion might not be enough to get people pissed off enough to do anything about it.

Would the Repos have bailed out GM and Chrysler? Yes, I suspect that they would have. Perhaps spent less money. They still would have spent far too much of money we don't have. If it had been less blatant, would the American people have gotten pissed off enough to rise up as the Tea Parties have and as they give every indication of doing in November?

National Security?

We could argue about some of the details. Should we be sending more troops to Afghanistan. Overall though, contrary to his pledges as a candidate, it doesn't seem like Obama is doing anything much different than Bush did or McCain would have. We are still in Iraq, Gitmo is still open, we have more troops in Afghanistan and so on.

The Economy ?

Bailouts and general interference with the economy.

"If you go off on de-regulation you will only prove that you are anything but a libertarian"

We might have gotten a bit less additional regulation under the Repos but only a bit less and it would have been every bit as harmful.

"I doubt you ever were really disgusted by the Repos but wanted to vote for the cool kid ... and now you are trying to justify that vote"

First, I live in Puerto Rico and we have no electoral votes. So, no, I didn't vote for Obama.

But I am not looking to justify my support for Obama. I was for him specifically because, as I have said for a long time, going back to the 80's at least "Worse is Better" (as Lenin said) I run a discussion group called NIOT and if you want to go back and look at some of the 50,000 or so notes since 1999, you will find I have said that there, with much greater elaboration, plenty of times over the years.

I was not old enough to vote in 1968 but supported Wallace because I wanted to destroy Washington. Or take it back. I was no fan of Wallace but he seemed like it might be helpful to have him as prez.

I have never, cast a ballot for an incumbent.

The US is busted. Our Constitution is nothing but a scrap of paper signifying nothing. We need an Obama to stir up the American people to take back our country.

I don't like him. I think he is incompetent and in the short run has done and is doing enormous damage.

But I also think he is just what we need and would vote for him tomorrow if I could.

I draw the line at contributing money. But then I almost never give pols money unless I am trying to bribe them. Legally, of course. We call them campaign contributions.

Show me the stats to back up your claim that the "libs" or the "Dems" have a real problem with minorities.

Show me how many votes the GOP garners from minorities.

Show me how many people of color even belong to the GOP.

You're just another tea bagger trying to defend a party that supports racism and is having a real tough time dealing with the fact that we have a president who is not lily white...and doing a better job that little Georgie.

You're just another tea bagger trying to defend a party that supports racism and is having a real tough time dealing with the fact that we have a president who is not lily white...and doing a better job that little Georgie.

"I say "no" all the time but that doesn't for an instant move things forward. I just stops things in their tracks."

Even if it were true that the Republicans were the party of "no", which it is not, what the hell difference does it make when the Dems are in total control of the House, Senate and the WH?

I keep hearing this over and over - the Republicans are keeping Barry and the Dems from doing what they need to do, but that's all bullshit. Every Dem knows it, except the delusional ones. Well, okay most of them ARE delusional, but you get the point.

I think "no" is a great idea for a party's theme. I would recommend that we pay our legislators by the laws they can rescind, say $10,000 to each for every law taken off the books. Hopefully this scheme would cost tens of millions thus saving us billions.

Also, I would recommend that they meet outside of Washington. Anywhere that was at least a three hour drive, one way, from a Palm restaurant.

Jeremy: In regard to the stupid George Bush one can look up his grades and his SAT scores. As to the brilliant Obama such research is impossible because the grades etc are sealed. Strange modesty for a man who has "written" two, (2), autobiographies before turning 50. Odd, eh?

Michael said..."Jeremy: In regard to the stupid George Bush one can look up his grades and his SAT scores...."

Blah, blah, blah...I know all about little Georgie's grades.

Now YOU tell me how someone who you think is so fucking smart...got us into two wars, and after inheriting a massive "surplus,"...fell asleep while the real estate market melted down, the financial houses of the country bilked millions of Americans out of billions of dollars...then signed an 800 billion dollar bank bailout (bet 90% of the tea baggers here and everywhere don't even know that)...then left behind an unemployment rate of 7.7% and a trillion dollar deficit when he headed off for the "ranch."

"Libtard Jeremy thinks we shouldn't have invaded Afganistan after 9-11."

I had no problem invading Afghanistan...but instead, we invaded Iraq, moron. And since that moment in time, we lost over 4,000 Americns and got another 30,000 wounded...in Iraq, not Afghanistan. Explain that

"Libtard Jeremy thinks rogue nation states like Iraq (and Iran now) should be allowed to develop WMDs for proxy attacks against the West."

Show me any evidence of WMD found in Iraq. For you to continue that lie is another indication of your ignorance.

"Libtard Jeremy has to go look up "proxy" and after inheriting a massive "surplus""

Bush inherited a "surplus...period.

"Libtard Jeremy is ignorant that Bush went to Congress TWICE to warm about Freddie and Fannie."

Well, if that's so...and considering the GOP held the "majority" for 6 of his 8 years...what happened...Fen?

It was the tea baggers who came up with the name, asswipe: "The term "teabagger" was introduced to the political lexicon by Tea Party movement leaders: The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.”

Q:During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A:Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.

Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted.

But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

"While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion...

...Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus."

"The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public."

Fen - "Bullshit. You got your panties in a wad because "he got us into two wars". Make up your fucking mind, idiot."

The fact that he got us mired down in TWO wars doesn't mean I didn't think we should go after Osama Bin Lade. You're skewing my comment to fit your delusional bullshit. And he DID leave us with two wars...did he NOT?

"I didn't say that. I said "prevent rogue nation states from developing WMDS". Do you deny that Iraq had a WMD program?"

I know what you said, but what does our current military plans have to do with NOT denying such countries to develop WMD? Bush olied us into Iraq and you know it, but don't have the guts to admit it.

"Not the way you use it, bitch."

I provided you with proof and there are plenty of signs at rallies (even at the very first rally) that used the term; "tea bag" the Democrats. (Take a shot at doing some research.)

"Lying? Hell, you cant even comprehend the basic argument. And then you try to weasel out of words you made just one post upthread."

I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say. Try that one again.

Fen - I realize being a tea bagger is getting a tad old, and it's always been embarrassing, not only for you, but the entire country...but why not read a few books...and hey, maybe even a NEWSPAPER...so you can argue with any real credibility.

You're trying to defend George W. Bush, the worst president in our nation's history by dragging out the same bullshit the GOP has been throwing out for the last 8 years plus.

More realistically though, these progressives just don't understand the Democratic party that they are in bed with. These ruling Democrats aren't "progressives" really, but rather statists who have adopted crony capitalism of the Fascist vintage.

All you have to do is watch how this Administration and this Congress have ruled over the last year and a half. They passed a massive "stimulus" bill that was designed primarily to benefit their most power constituencies, and then adopted financial "reform" that effectively leaves the firms that are too-big-to-fail still unregulated. The 2,000 pages of the bill will likely result in 10s of thousands of pages of regulations, that will most just hamper the smaller banks and financial institutions, while benefiting the biggest financial institutions.

What is going on there and why aren't the progressives being rewarded? Because that isn't where the money is. The unions are at the table (though they still haven't gotten card check) because they provide a lot of money to campaigns, as well as the Democrats' foot soldiers. Big companies are at the table because they have a lot of money to spread around, and the Democrats know that they will get a lot of it, either directly as campaign contributions, but even more so as lobbyists, consultants, and board members.

What has been notable about most of the fraud and corruption that we have seen over the last couple of years with the ruling Democrats is that it mostly involves special favors and being bought off. Usually not as blatant as what William Jefferson was doing, but rather, the sort of sweetheart deals that Rangle, Dodd, and, yes, even President Obama have gotten.

The "progressives" who are complaining here just don't have much that the Democrats need right now, except for their votes, and the progressives are not about to vote Republican. And they don't have enough votes to keep the Democrats in power, esp. in the House, come November. So, no surprise that they have ended up as junior members in the ruling coalition.

Neither does it render invalid the reality that the government has transferred billions of taxpayer dollars from the hands of working Americans and into the pockets and offshore accounts of the thieves who head up the banks and Wall Street firms, who have enjoyed an orgy of giving themselves bonuses with our money during a time when many Americans are in desperate straits.

And it was all done with the full collusion of the ruling Democrats. It is called "crony capitalism", and is one part of Fascist socialism. Everyone is equal, but there are some, at the top of government, the top of big companies, and those that interface between them, that are far more equal.